Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
derwood
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 212 of 303 (145000)
09-27-2004 10:13 AM


closures in "Free for All"????
Moosehole is at it again....

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 213 of 303 (145974)
09-30-2004 10:49 AM


After jousting with WillowTree and Robert Byers for far too long, I pose this question:
Should moderators step in and restrict a member's posting privileges just because he's clueless? I realize clueless isn't a very precise term, but the problem is that there's no single diagnosis, so I wanted a broad term. If there's a common element I think it would be that they have no conception of how to support their argument with evidence. These people apparently believe that the fact that they said it, or that somebody somewhere said it, is enough. And with only this much to go on they drive everyone crazy for hundreds of messages.
I enter into these ridiculous dialogues under the delusion that patiently explaining things will, over time, gradually get the point across. I for some reason believe that someone's irrational ramblings will eventually become rational and reasoned. Why I believe this I have no idea, because I've been doing this for decades and should know better.
I'm not really interested in EvC Forum becoming a haven for the rationally challenged, and I hope to install some changes in the board software that will link a member's privileges to the quality of their contributions, but I'm also very interested in what current members think about discussions with the clueless. Would members feel slighted if such discussions became less available here?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by MrHambre, posted 09-30-2004 11:24 AM Admin has replied
 Message 216 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2004 11:40 AM Admin has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 214 of 303 (145991)
09-30-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Admin
09-30-2004 10:49 AM


I admire your patience. I think it was during the DarkStar Wars that I realized these marathon sparring sessions aren't constructive in the least. Old friends like John Paul, Syamsu, Zealot, and Skeptick deserve credit too for this epiphany.
It might be worth it to have a moderator ask the recalcitrant party to sum up his points or give examples of the kind of evidence he would consider persuasive. Otherwise it just degenerates into a shit-flinging party, like we've got going with ID man in a couple of threads.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 09-30-2004 10:49 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Admin, posted 09-30-2004 11:35 AM MrHambre has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 215 of 303 (146001)
09-30-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by MrHambre
09-30-2004 11:24 AM


MrHambre writes:
It might be worth it to have a moderator ask the recalcitrant party to sum up his points or give examples of the kind of evidence he would consider persuasive.
You've given me something to think about for a new feature. I wonder if having a "Summing Up Mode" for threads would be helpful. The way it would work is, after a moderator puts a thread in Summing Up Mode, everyone who has already contributed to the thread gets only one more message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by MrHambre, posted 09-30-2004 11:24 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM Admin has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 216 of 303 (146005)
09-30-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Admin
09-30-2004 10:49 AM


Maybe you could rope off a little corner of the forum as a petting zoo for the irredeemably irrational. Much in the way the 'free for all' forum acted when Syamsu or others had their posting priveleges restricted.
This seems to echo a disussion which came up in Jar's thread on Synchronicity about the level of scholarship shown in debates with wildly different extremes such as mammuthus's large lists of primary sources compared to those on both sides who prefer to use partisan FAQs to rebutt each other and those who simply think that their word should be proof enough of whatever claims they may make.
The forum's rules cover many of these infractions. So in some ways this is merely another question of whether it is healthier for the board to sustain a population of scientifically illiterate disputants in order to maintain diversity, or to be much more draconian in enforcement of the rules and risk losing a number of members.
I don't want to make sweeping generalisations, but I fear that the greater proportion of those lost would be from the already under-represented anti-darwinian faction.
I'm in favour of diversity, after all without Syamsu I wouldn't have, hmm, err, wasted several hours of my life replying to questions by Syamsu? But I do sometimes wish that the fringier elements would still make some effort to acquaint themselves with a more evidence based apprach to debate. Syamsu may well have thoroughly misunderstood almost every paper he ever presented in support of his argument, but at least he bothered to present them.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I miss Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Admin, posted 09-30-2004 10:49 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 12:05 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 218 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-30-2004 12:54 PM Wounded King has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 217 of 303 (146021)
09-30-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Wounded King
09-30-2004 11:40 AM


Syamasu/Nando
He's started posting to talk.origins again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2004 11:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 218 of 303 (146056)
09-30-2004 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Wounded King
09-30-2004 11:40 AM


quote:
Maybe you could rope off a little corner of the forum as a petting zoo for the irredeemably irrational. Much in the way the 'free for all' forum acted when Syamsu or others had their posting priveleges restricted.
Very perceptive of you. There is an ongoing discussion about this very concept, in the "Private Admin Forum". I had just bumped the topic early this morning.
Care to become an administrator? Please don't respond in this topic. Rather, send me an e-mail at mnmoose@lakenet.com
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Wounded King, posted 09-30-2004 11:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 219 of 303 (146057)
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Admin
09-30-2004 11:35 AM


Summing up mode - Great idea
Sounds like a wonderful idea!!!
After the summaries are done, there would be the option of going back to "normal mode".
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Admin, posted 09-30-2004 11:35 AM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 303 (148170)
10-07-2004 5:14 PM


From "Junk DNA":
Crashfrog writes:
Admins, at this point, I don't know what else JAD has to do to substantiate that he has no plans to engage in productive discussion. What else does it take to get some action taken around here? Maybe when the Moose gets done sitting on topics he can get his ass in gear, here?
Adminnemooseus writes:
Do you not have the free will of not responding to Salty/JAD?
Make any response to the "Changes in Moderation?" topic. Link back here.
What evidence do you have that that will work? JAD has said outright that he intends to rail against Darwinists rather than engage in productive discussion; there's no indication that he needs any provocation to do so. After all there was no provocation for him to return and begin posting anew.
I don't understand why you think ignoring him will make him go away, after he's pledged not to leave at any cost. What else does it take to get banned here besides saying "I'm determined to break the rules and act like an ass, and there's nothing you can do about it?"
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-07-2004 04:15 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 5:58 PM crashfrog has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 221 of 303 (148179)
10-07-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
10-07-2004 5:14 PM


Re: From "Junk DNA":
I would suggest not responding. When thinking over Percy's concerns about who we get here a tought arose.
The whatever's and salty's of the world aren't going to be given the time of day by anyone with any serious thinking ability anywhere else. They come here to engage people in conversation that, to them, gives them some importance.
Once the quality of the posters thinking has been sorted out then I think that no response is the best response.
There is a chance that they will, in desparation for attention, start posting all over the place whether relevant or not. This will get them suspended. As soon as we sort out the "bootcamp" I hope that those of us attempting to moderate will move these people there sooner rather than later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 6:11 PM AdminNosy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 303 (148181)
10-07-2004 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by AdminNosy
10-07-2004 5:58 PM


They come here to engage people in conversation that, to them, gives them some importance.
But he's not here to engage in conversation. He's said as much. He's here to make fun of Darwinists, not address arguments.
I don't see that that's something we have a responsibility to support, or that we should wish to.
There is a chance that they will, in desparation for attention, start posting all over the place whether relevant or not.
Short of actually doing that, isn't an announced intention to do just that sufficient to merit action?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 5:58 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:19 PM crashfrog has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 223 of 303 (148185)
10-07-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
10-07-2004 6:11 PM


It is difficult
I'll just give you my view. I know it varies with all the admins.
It is very difficult to strike the right balance when moderating these things. My approach is usually to go way over to the side of letting the less skilled (to be polite) get away with a lot. I hope you'll be complimented to know that I would not be inclined to let you get away with squat.
It is difficult to pin down exactly when it is time to take action.
In the recent involvment I had with whatever I got trapped into actually engaging him in the debate itself and was stuck somewhere between normal (if any of us are ) and admin mode. At that point it becomes much harder to suspend him. I was about to anyway when AdminMooseus stepped in and saved me from it.
As far as Davidson goes I wasn't following closely enough to make a decision. In his case I think ignoring him will either cause him to go away or to do something that makes the suspension decision easy.
Meanwhile, please have a look at and comment on my note regarding the "Debate Bootcamp" (it should be cleaned up soon). I would like comment on that.
With that in place I think we will be able to try something that is easy to do than full suspension but more controlled than the FFA has been. It will require, however, not just moderation but also a very special kind of support from all posters (you being a significant one, Crash). Let me know what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 6:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 6:28 PM AdminNosy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 303 (148186)
10-07-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by AdminNosy
10-07-2004 6:19 PM


I hope you'll be complimented to know that I would not be inclined to let you get away with squat.
Well, I hope you won't.
As far as Davidson goes I wasn't following closely enough to make a decision.
I realize that. That was the point of my post; not to be an ass, but to bring a thread to the attention of admins who I knew weren't reading it.
I mean, isn't the fact that Salty's participating under two ID's now enough by itself? What does it take?
I was about to anyway when AdminMooseus stepped in and saved me from it.
By doing nothing?
In his case I think ignoring him will either cause him to go away or to do something that makes the suspension decision easy.
I still don't understand what's hard about the decision now. The Junk DNA thread was interesting. Now it's a landfill of JAD posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:19 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:30 PM crashfrog has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 225 of 303 (148188)
10-07-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
10-07-2004 6:28 PM


Sigh, I'll have a look
I'll look in more detail then. It's a busy day give me a few hours please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 6:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 6:33 PM AdminNosy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 303 (148190)
10-07-2004 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by AdminNosy
10-07-2004 6:30 PM


Re: Sigh, I'll have a look
All I ask. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 6:30 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024